| name | mind-review-process |
| description | Use to understand how Mind evaluates a submission — triple-anonymous peer review, quality as the sole criterion, the role of expert referees, and what it means for a journal that receives over 800 submissions a year. Sets expectations and shapes the paper to survive review; it does not contact editors. |
Review Process (mind-review-process)
Knowing how Mind screens and decides lets you pre-empt the failure modes before submitting. Mind runs a
triple-anonymous process, takes quality as the sole criterion, and receives over 800
submissions a year judged by expert referees. The selection is severe; the paper must be decisive on
its own terms.
When to trigger
- Before submitting, to stress-test against the way Mind judges papers
- Interpreting a decision letter and setting realistic expectations
- Understanding why anonymization is non-negotiable here
- Deciding whether your piece is competitive at a high-rejection venue
How Mind review works
- Triple-anonymous. Author identity is not revealed to editors or referees unless and until
the paper is accepted. This is stronger than ordinary double-anonymous review — neither the handling
editor nor the referees know who you are. Prepare the manuscript accordingly (see
mind-submission).
- Preparation is a gate. Papers not prepared for anonymous refereeing will not be read —
revealing acknowledgements and self-identifying references must be removed.
- Expert referees. Editors seek advice from a large pool of expert referees, associate editors,
and the Editorial Board. Assume the referee knows the debate and the strongest objection to your
argument better than you do.
- Quality is the sole criterion. No area, no style, no school is excluded — but the paper must be
excellent: a significant thesis, a sound argument, the best objection answered.
- Severe selection. With >800 submissions a year, most are declined. A paper that merely
"adds something" rarely clears the bar; the argument must be decisive.
Shape the paper to pass
- Make the thesis and its significance unmistakable early (avoids "not significant enough").
- Answer the strongest objection visibly — the referee is that objection (see
mind-objections-and-replies).
- Engage the best version of the target view, not a strawman (see
mind-literature-positioning).
- Keep technical material glossed informally so a non-specialist referee follows it.
- Anonymize fully — a non-anonymized manuscript may simply not be read.
Anti-patterns
- Submitting a manuscript that reveals the author (it will not be read)
- A competent-but-incremental paper at a venue where quality is the sole, severe criterion
- Leaving the strongest objection for the referee to raise
- Targeting a strawman version of the view you oppose
- Assuming breadth of topic substitutes for a sharp, defended thesis
Review-risk pass for Mind
Use this as a second-pass capability check. First lock the target thesis, argument map, objection sequence, and dialectical payoff; then test whether the manuscript addresses analytic-philosophy reviewers who expect a precise thesis, live objection, argument structure, and contribution to an active debate.
- Primary move: Turn likely reviewer objections into a ledger with response evidence, manuscript location, and the decision-maker who must be convinced first.
- Decision ledger: return
claim / evidence / blocker / next edit rows so the next pass can patch the manuscript directly.
- Neighbor test: compare against Philosophical Review for broader top philosophy, Nous for analytic breadth, Ethics for normative/political theory; if the neighboring outlet has the stronger audience claim, recommend re-routing before polishing.
- Verification floor: before submission-ready advice, re-open
resources/official-source-map.md for volatile rules and name the one unresolved fact that could change the recommendation.
Output format
【Anonymization】prepared for triple-anonymous review? [Y/N]
【Significance】thesis clearly significant, not incremental? [Y/N]
【Strongest objection】answered in the paper? [Y/N]
【Target view】engaged at its best? [Y/N]
【Realistic outcome】reject / revise / (rare) accept
【Next】mind-submission (or mind-revision-and-response if decided)
Supplementary resources
